Last Saturday, the New York Times posted an editorial explaining how successful President Barack Obama's foreign policy has actually been. Really? The Middle East is currently burning to the ground in anti-American violence, precipating with an assassination of a U.S. ambassador, and Obama is a foreign guru? Really?This article is just wrong, completely and unadultrously wrong. Obama's foreign policy has failed, and there is just no way to spin it the other way. I can't even say that they tried. Everything they said was just wrong, starting with the opening: FOR the first time in a long, long time, a Democrat is running for president and has the clear advantage on national security policy. That is not “how things are supposed to be,” and Republicans sound apoplectic about it.

Alright, I'll give them that. Prior to Sept. 11, 2012, a there was finally a Democrat running for pesident had a clear advantage on national security policy. The world seemed calm, even if was increasing with tension. But that ended the moment the entire Arab world rose up in violent anti-Americanism. Now Obama lost whatever advantage on national security he once had. And he seem incapable of getting it back.But there is a reason President Obama is leading on national security, and it was apparent in his U.N. speech last week, which showed a president who understands that we really do live in a more complex world today — and that saying so is not a cop-out.Whenever a leftist says that the world, or any situation for that matter, is complicated, it just means that reality is not conforming to their asinine theories. Whether or not the world is complicated is not the point. The solutions to many of the world's problems are simply, if only because they are so well known and work and have worked for a long time. For some strange reason leftists believe in their own intelliegence so much that they reject the old, time-tested solutions in favor of their own untested solutions. And when those solutions don't work, they claim the situation is just too complicated.

The only thing missing is a president who is ready to simultaneously confront Russia, bash China, tell Iraqis we’re not leaving their country, snub the Muslim world by outsourcing our Arab-Israel policy to the prime minister of Israel, green light Israel to bomb Iran — and raise the defense budget while cutting taxes and eliminating the deficit.Lots of things wrong with that sentence. But the part that really gets me is the the part about "outsourcing our Arab-Isreal policy to the prime minister of Israel." It's comments like this that make me realize that the majority of those who criticize Israel do so not because they dislike Isreal's policies, but because they don't like that Israel is Jewish. At no time in Isreali-American relations has anyone suggested outsourcing our foreign policy to Isreal, or anything else remotely similar. It's just plain anti-semitism that make such horrible comments like that. It’s a world where a cheap YouTube video made by a superempowered individual can cause us more trouble than the million-dollar propaganda campaign of a superpower competitor.This is just untrue. Only the Obama administration, and its many sycophants, have said that Innocence of Muslims caused the Middle-east to go all crazy. It is, and always was, al-Qaeda proving to the world that they can mobilize the entire Arab world into an army of hate and terror. This is something that even the President of the United States can barely do.It is a globalized economy in which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America’s largest business lobby, has opposed Romney’s pledge to designate China as a currency manipulator and is pressing Congress to lift cold war trade restrictions on Russia, a country Romney has labeled America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.”Since when does a lefty, and a leftist publication, side with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the favorite haunt of the "evil" 1%, on anything? That would be heresy if they weren't using it to bash Obama's opponent, the only time Leftists are allowed to agree with Conservative positions.It is a world where, at times, pulling back — and focusing on rebuilding our strength at home — is the most meaningful foreign policy initiative we can undertake because when America is at its best — its institutions, schools and values — it can inspire emulation, whereas Russia and China still have to rely on transactions or bullying to get others to follow.America is certainly something to emulate. But how often has that actually happened? It is just a strange kind of narcissism that believes that ANY nation is so awesome that some people will want to emulate it completely. Add it all up and it’s a world in which America will have...fewer resources (because we have to cut the defense budget) to manage a more complex set of actors (because so many of the states we have to deal with now are new democracies with power emanating from their people not just one man — like Egypt — or failing states like Pakistan)...

We certainly don't have to cut the defense budget. We are choosing to, because we don't want to roll back our massive welfare costs. It is 0ur choice and ours alone. It is not something that we have to do.For instance, if you had listened to Romney criticizing Obama for weakness after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, you’d have thought that, had Romney been president, he would have immediately ordered some counterstrike.Romney certainly would have been more forceful and stronger than Obama was. But to claim that he would have ordered a counterstrike is just wrong fearmongering at its worst. We actually don't know what Romney would have done as President. We do know, however, what Obama did as President. And that should be the whole point.Voters will have to go with their gut about which guy has the best gut feel for navigating this world. Obama has demonstrated that he has something there. Romney has not. Obama has proven that he has something there? Really? With the Middle East burning as it is, Obabma has proven that he has something there? Really?This article shows that either Leftists have so little respect for the "little guy" that their willing to lie to them, or that they actually believe what they're saying. The former is disgusting. The latter, however, is terrifying. Because whatever they claim, they are the ones in power, they're the ones with the reponsibility to protect us. And they are proving they are incapable of doing just that.